MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

THE UNIVERSITY OF DANANG

TRẦN THỊ MINH GIANG

A STUDY OF COGNITIVE NON-FACTIVE VERB

AND EPISTEMIC ADVERB COLLOCATIONS

IN ENGLISH

Major: English Linguistics

Code: 62.22.02.01

DOCTORAL THESIS

IN SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

(A SUMMARY)

Danang- 2018

The study has been completed at The University of Danang

Supervisor : Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lưu Quý Khương

Examiner 1: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Võ Đại Quang

Examiner 2: Dr. Ytrou Alio

Examiner 3: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tôn Nữ Mỹ Nhật

The thesis was orally defended at the Examining Committee

Time : 31/ 3/ 2018

Venue: The University of Danang

This thesis is available for purpose of reference at:

- Library of University of Foreign Language Studies, The University

of Danang

- The Information Resources Centre,The University of Danang

- National Library of Viet Nam

1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Rationale

In daily communication, our ultimate goal is not only to

impart information described in utterances but also to express our

judgement to the truth of what is said, or the content of the

proposition. Linguists attribute the speaker‟s attitude to the states of

affairs modality in general and epistemic modality in particular.

Especially in epistemic modality, cognitive non-factive verbs

and epistemic adverbs are often used to hedge or mitigate the

speaker‟s imposition and give the addressee a chance to argue about

the truth, or the falsity of states of affairs. Hedging items or

modulations combined a cognitive non-factive verb and an epistemic

adverb with the singular first person subject pronoun I such as I

certainly think, I possibly believe, maybe I guess, I suppose perhaps

… may be an interesting and useful aspect to all language learners of

English as in the following example

(1.1) “I think perhaps I can too. But I try not to borrow.

First you borrow. Then youbeg.” (The old man and the sea, 1952,

p.10)

Until now although there have been some researchers

referring to the combination of a modal verb and a modal adverb

such as Coates (1983), Halliday (1979), Hoye (1997), Lyons (1977),

Perkins (1983)… a study of the structure consisting of the singular

first person subject and a cognitive non-factive verb and epistemic

adverb collocation remains an unexploited area. Therefore, the thesis

entitled A study of cognitive non-factive verb and epistemic adverb

collocations in English is hoped, once finished, may help both

2

learners of English and native speakers of English use the structure

effectively in communication. Furthermore, the study of the structure

in terms of syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics might contribute a

better understanding of modal meanings in English, therefore,

improving the quality of teaching and learning English.

1.2. Aims and Objectives of the Study

1.2.1. Aims of the Study

This study aims at examining the linguistic features of the

structure that consists of the singular first person subject pronoun I

and a collocation of CNFVs and EAs in English and showing the

interplay of these linguistic aspects in order to provide learners of

English and native speakers of English with practical knowledge to

use the structure more effectively in communication.

1.2.2. Objectives of the Study

- To identify the linguistic features of the structure I + CNFV

and EA collocations in three aspects of syntactics, semantics and

pragmatics.

- To present the interplay of three linguistic dimensions in the

structure I + CNFV and EA collocations.

- To make suggestions of using the construction mentioned to

teach and learn English as a foreign language.

1.3. Research Questions

- What are the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features of the

structure I + CNFV and EA collocations in English?

- What is the interplay of three above mentioned linguistic

dimensions in the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations in

English?

3

1.4. Object of the Study

The object of the study is the structure I + cognitive non-

factive verb and epistemic adverb collocations

1.5. Scope of the Study

In the study we examined the collocations created from six

CNFVs such as think, believe, guess, suppose, assume, hope and

epistemic adverbs including epistemic adverbs like certainly,

perhaps, probably, possibly, maybe, surely, definitely, really,

indeed, verily…

1.6. Significance of the Study

1.6.1. Theoretical Significance of the Study

The study can make an essential contribution to the

investigation of linguistic features of the structure I + CNFV and EA

collocations in English in syntactics, semantics and pragmatics.

More importantly, the study presented the interplay of three above

linguistic aspects in the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations.

1.6.2. Practical Significance of the Study

- It provides a very useful source of reference for compiling

lectures, books, and materials related to the scope of the study.

- The findings of the study form a good theoretical background

for next language researches on modality.

- It assists learners of English to have better understanding of

modal meanings of the construction in order to use the structure

more effectively in communication.

1.7. Organization of the Study

Chapter 1: Introduction; Chapter 2: Literature Review and

Theoretical Background; Chapter 3: Research Methodology; Chapter

4: Syntactic Features of the Structure I + CNFV and EA

4

collocations; Chapter 5: Semantic Features of the Structure I +

CNFV and EA collocations; Chapter 6: Pragmatic Features of the

Structure I + CNFV and EA collocations; Chapter 7: Interplay of

three linguistic dimensions: syntactics, semantics, pragmatics of the

structure I + CNFV and EA collocations; Chapter 8: Conclusion.

Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL

BACKGROUND

2.1. Review of Previous Researches Related to the Study

2.1.1. Syntactics

Urmson (1982) discussed parenthetical verbs such as suppose,

believe, think, expect… Mackenzie (1987) went on Urmson‟s

research about the mobility of mental verbs such as know, believe,

guess but they had deep studies of the parenthetical verbs.

Halliday (1961) described a type of collocational study. Later

in his study (1994), he presented all components of theme such as

interpersonal theme, topical theme and textual theme.

In Viet Nam, Hoàng Tuệ (1962) and Nguyễn Kim Thản (1999)

presented syntactic linguistic features of Vietnamese epistemic verbs.

The syntactic theory of neg-raising proposed by Fillmore

(1963), Horn (1978), and later Bublitz (1992) has enjoyed a good

deal of attention and is supported by a number of compelling

arguments.

In addition, Thompson and Mulac (1991) applied the theory of

grammaticalization in order to explain more about the parenthetical

ability of the structures.

5

Cao Xuân Hạo (1991) states that there are two different kinds

of modality: modality of utterance-act ( modalité d‟ énonciation),

modality of predication (modalité d‟ énoncé).

2.1.2. Semantics

Basing on the criteria of time, Vendler (1967) distinguished

two meanings of the verb “think”. Searle (1969) considered the

theory of speech acts by Austin (1962) as the most suitable to discuss

modality. In Viet Nam, Hoàng Phê (1984) called “nghĩ” in the

structure “tôi nghĩ là” parenthetical verb.

Goddard (2003) investigated the semantic expansion of the

verb “ think” in English, Chinese, Yupik Eskimo, Samoan and

Japanese.Besides, Iraide (1999) and Evans and Wilkins (2000)

studied the semantic change from perception verbs to cognition verbs

in some languages in Australia.

2.1.3. Pragmatics

In pragmatics, we have to refer to Grice‟s study (1975) with

his cooperative principle. Next, Grice‟s maxims were examined and

developed by Lakoff (1977) and Sperber (1986). Later, the politeness

theory, a sociolinguistic theory in the pragmatic tradition was

developed by Brown and Levinson (1987)

Hoàng Trọng Phiến (1983), Đỗ Hữu Châu (1983), Hoàng

Tuệ (1988) have discussed the notion of modality since 1980s.

Hengeveld (1988) discussed the impact of illocution and

modality through a representation of main clauses which can

distinguish several layers, each representing a different mode of

speech acts. Aijmer (1997), Kaltenböck (2010), Karkkainen (2003),

(2007), (2010), and Thompson (2002) express the state of latent

6

instabilility and especially susceptible to change of grammaticalizing

elements, which is the adoption of new pragmatic functions.

In Cappelli‟s paper (2005),(2007),(2008) She also mentioned

modulating attitudes via adverbs, which have a cognitive-pragmatic

approach.

2.1.4. Combination of Three Aspects

Aijmer (1997), Thompson & Mulac (1991), Van (2011), and

Vandenbergen (2000) express that in order to understand I think

well, we should study it in three aspects : syntactics, semantics and

pragmatics. Hoye (1997) mentioned modal - adverb collocations.

In the cross linguistic studies, Ngũ Thiện Hùng (2004) did the

research into grammatical and lexical devices in epistemic modality

in English and Vietnamese in aspects of syntactics, semantics and

pragmatics. Besides,Võ Đại Quang (2009) also presented linguistic

features of some modal devices in English and in Vietnamese in

three aspects: syntactics, semantics and pragmatics.

Recently, the cross linguistic study by Nguyễn Thị Thu Thủy

(2015) has described, analysed and compared/ contrasted English

and Vietnamese root and epistemic modality as realized by modal

verbs from Cognitive perspective. Next, Nguyễn Thị Thu Hà (2016)

showed the group of cognition verbs in Vietnamese in reference to

English. Last, Trần Hữu Phúc (2017) conducted an investigation into

modality expressions used as politeness strategies in English course

via a corpus-based method.

2.2. Theoretical Background

2.2.1. Modality and Epistemic Modality

2.2.1.1. Traditional Logic Modality

7

In traditional logic, judgements are divided into two kinds:

necessity and possibility.

2.2.1.2. Linguistics Modality

The notions of modality in linguistics have been given by

many linguists such as Bybee (1985), Lyons (1977), Rescher (1968),

Đỗ Hữu Châu (2009) …especially Palmer (1986)‟s definition is the

most important for the study.

2.2.1.3. The Distinction between Modality and Proposition

In linguistics, Bally, as cited in Nguyễn Văn Hiệp (2008)

distinguished meaning structure of the sentence made up by modus

and dictum, which influence each other. Thus, according to Ngũ

Thiện Hùng (2004) the semanntic structure of an utterance can be

presented like: M [P] (M= Modality; P= Proposition)

And we have modalized utterances like: I think possibly P; I

maybe believe P, I certainly think P.

2.2.1.4. The Distinction between Deontic and Epistemic Modality

2.2.1.5. Types of Modality

According to Jespersen (1949) there are two features which

share are subjectivity, i.e. the involvement of the speaker and non-

factuality which consists of “Deontic” and “Epistemic”.

2.2.1.6. Types of Modality

According to Palmer (1986), epistemic modality is divided

into three subtypes: factive, contra-factive, and non-factive.

2.2.2. Collocations of Cognitive Non- Factive Verb and Epistemic

Adverbs

2.2.2.1. Modal Lexical Verbs

a. Mental Space Theory

8

Fauconier gave the definition of mental space that a mental

space does not have a faithful representation of reality, but an

idealized cognitive model whereas a possible world consists of both

actual world and other distinct possible worlds.

b. Cognitive Non-Factive Verbs

According to Kiparsky (1968), these verbs are also divided

into two main types: factive verbs and non-factive verbs. Especially,

Palmer (1986) called the non-factive verbs such as think, suppose,

believe… weak assertive verbs.

c. Characteristics of Cognitive Non-Factive Verbs

- Always going with the singular first person subject in simple

present tense; the omission of complementizer that , and in tag-

questions, the tags only aiming at the subject of proposition

(complement clause)

2.2.2.2. Modal Adverbs

a. Epistemic Adverbs

According to Biber, et al. (1999, p.549), there are three major

types of adverbs: circumstance adverb, linking adverbs and stance

adverbs. Stance adverbs are apparently, clearly, perhaps, possibly…

b. Types of Epistemic Adverbs in English

Khuong and Giang (2012) divided epistemic adverbs into two

kinds: assertive epistemic modal adverbs and Quirk et al (1985)

showed three modality meanings of adverbs such as emphasis,

approximate, restriction. We have the scale of EAs as follows.

Table 2.1. Scale of epistemic adverbs

Degrees Epistemic Adverbs

High certainly, surely, definitely, actually, verily, really,

9

indeed, infact

Medium probably, possibly, maybe, perhaps

Low Just, rather, only, hardly, scarcely

c. Characteristics of Epistemic Adverbs

c1. Syntactic Functions of Epistemic Adverbs

c2. Semantic Roles of Epistemic Adverbs

c3. Multiple Occurrence of Epistemic Adverbs and the Interplay of

Semantics, Syntactics, and Pragmatics

2.2.2.3. Cognitive Non- Factive Verb and Epistemic Adverb

Collocations

a. The Definition of the Term collocation

b. Modally Harmonic Combinations of a Modal Verb and a Modal

Adverb

Lyons (1977) acknowledged “modally harmonic” and

“modally non-harmonic” combinations, where the modal verb and its

adverb satellite have to complement and reinforce each other.

2.2.3. Linguistic Features

2.2.3.1. Syntactics

a. Mobility of Modal Collocations in the Same Clause

b. Moved Negation and Epistemic Modality

2.2.3.2. Semantics

a. Epistemic Scale

Givón (1982) gave a scale of certainty. Later Cappelli (2008)

divided epistemicity into two dimensions: certainty and probability.

b. Epistemic Modality Based on Deduction

- Assumptive mood, Declarative mood, Deductive mood, Dubitative

mood, Hypothetical mood, Interrogative mood, Speculative mood.

10

2.2.3.3. Pragmatics

a. Pragmaticalization and Pragmatic Markers

b. Factors Affecting the Mobility of the Modal Structure I + CNFV

and EA Collocations

c. The ‘Conversational Maxim’ View in Communicative Strategies

d. The ‘Face-Saving’ View in Politeness Theory

e. Speech-Act Modality

- There are five types of general functions performed by speech

acts: declarations, representatives, expressives, directives, and

commissives.

2.3. Summary

This chapter chiefly presented two main parts: a brief review of

previous researches related to the study and theoretical background.

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research Design

The descriptive and statistical method of the structure I +

CNFV and EA collocations in English in terms of syntactic, semantic

and pragmatic features were conducted to seek qualitative and

quantitative information.

3.2. Research Methods

The principal method applied for the study is the descriptive

one and there are other techniques such as substitution,

transformation, insertion, contexual analysis.

3.3. Procedures of the Study

There are 9 steps in the procedures of the study.

3.4. Data Collection and Data Analysis

11

3.4.1. Description of Samples

1000 samples collected from different sources such as novels,

short stories, and online materials must be a complete sentence

which contains a structure consisting of the singular first person

subject I and a collocation of a cognitive non-factive verb and an

epistemic adverb, and followed by a complement clause. Especially

samples have to meet four following criteria.

3.4.1.1. Authenticity

3.4.1.2. Accessibility

3.4.1.3. Variation

3.4.1.4. Reputation

3.4.2. Data Collection Procedure

3.4.3. Data Analysis Procedure

3.5. Analytical Framework of the Study

The analysis of linguistic features of the study was carried out

in the theoretical framework by Palmer (1986), Givón (1982) - scale

of certainty, Bublitz (1992) – approach to negation, McIntosh

(1961)- collocation, Sweetser (1990)- Speech-act modality in 3

linguistic aspects: syntactics, semantics, pragmatics, and their

interplay.

3.6. Reliability and Validity

The patterns from the data collection were always compared

with the results from the theoretical background to maintain the

quality of the research.

3.7. Summary

In sum, this chapter showed us the research design with

methods known as description, interpretation, quality, quantity,

statistics… and techniques including substitution, transformation,

12

insertion, contextual analysis.

Chapter 4

SYNTACTIC FEATURES OF THE STRUCTURE

I + CNFV AND EA COLLOCATIONS

4.1. Analysis of the Structure I + Cognitive Non-Factive Verb

and Epistemic Adverb Collocations

(4.1) “I think perhaps I should have made a show of the

indignation” (The moon and six pence,1996, p.46)

The syntactic structures of (4.1) can be demonstrated in

bracket diagrams like this:

[I think perhaps [I should have made a show of the indignation]]

4.2. Harmony of Cognitive Non-Factive Verbs and Epistemic

Adverbs in the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations

4.2.1. The Structure I think + EAs

I think + strong epistemic adverbs/ medium epistemic

adverbs/ low epistemic adverbs.

4.2.2. The Structure I believe + EAs

I believe + strong epistemic adverbs/ medium epistemic

adverbs/ low epistemic adverbs.

4.2.3. The Structure I hope + EAs

I hope + strong epistemic adverbs/ medium epistemic

adverbs/ low epistemic adverbs.

4.2.4. The Structure I guess + EAs

I guess + really/ probably/ maybe

4.2.5. The Structure I suppose + EAs

I suppose + really/ rather

4.2.6. The Structure I assume + EAs

13

I assume + just/ perhaps

4.3. Frequency of the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations

Table 4.17. Frequency of six pattern of the structure I +CNFV and

EA collocations

Constructions Occurrence %

I think + EAs 552 55.2

I hope + EAs 256 25.6

I believe + EAs 156 15.6

I guess + EAs 17 1.7

I assume+ EAs 12 1.2

I suppose + EAs 7 0.7

Total 1000 100

4.4. Mobility of Epistemic Adverbs in the Matrix Clause

4.5. Ordering of the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations in

the Superordinate Clause

The structure can stand in the following positions.

4.5.1. Initial

4.5.2. Medial

4.5.3. Final

4.5.4. Frequency of the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations

in Initial, Medial, and Final Positions

Table 4.18. Frequency of the structure I + CNFV and EA

collocations in initial, medial, final positions

Positions of I + CNFV and EA

Collocations

Occurrence %

Initial 975 97.5

Medial 16 1.6

14

Final 9 0.9

Total 1000 100

4.6. The Complementizer “that” in a Superordinate Clause

4.6.1. The Complementizer “that” with Epistemic Adverbs in the

Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations

Table 4.19. Positions in correlation with the employment of

“that”with epistemic adverbs in the matrix Clause

Positions of EAs Initial Medial Final

That ± + ±

4.6.2. Omission of Complementizer “that” in the Superordinate

Clause

Table 4.20. Positions of complementizer „that‟ in the superordinate

clause

Positions Initial Medial Final

That ± _ _

In 500 random English samples collected from different

sources, we have the following resullt of using and omitting the

complementizer “that”

Table 4.21. Omission of complementizer “that” in English sentences

English Examples Occurrence %

With “that” 128 25.6

Without “that” 372 74.4

Total 500 100

4.7. The Raising of Negative Form in Sentences with the

Structure I + Cognitive Non-Factive Verb and Epistemic Adverb

Collocations

15

We have the following results of using moved negation in

daily communication with 200 negative English samples (see

Appendix B)

Table 4.22. Frequency of the moved negation in English sentences

with the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations

Negative Examples Occurrence %

Marked Negative Move 118 59

Unmarked Negation 82 41

Total 200 100

+ Marked Negative Move means the negative part which is put in the

theme (in the matrix clause)

+ Unmarked Negation means the negative part which is put in the

rheme (in the subordinate clause)

4.8. Summary

The harmony of CNFVs and EAs, the mobility of the structure,

the omission of the complementizer “that”, moved negation of the

structure were discussed in this section.

.

Chapter 5

SEMANTIC FEATURES OF THE STRUCTURE

I + CNFV AND EA COLLOCATIONS

5.1. Semantic Features of the Structure I + CNFV and EA

Collocations Based on Deduction

5.1.1. The Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations Expressing

Belief

5.1.2. The Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations Expressing

Inference

16

5.1.3. The Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations Expressing

Prediction

Table 5.1. Semantics features of the structure I + CNFV and EA

collocations in English based on deduction

Semantics features of I + CNFV and EA

collocation based on deduction

I + CNFV and EA

collocations

Bel

ief

I say I + CNFV and EA collocations belief P

1. Low certainty:

I want you to know that I am not

sure of the likelihood of P.

P is just my own assumption.

P is less likely to be true.

2. High certainty:

I want you to know that I am pretty

sure of the likelihood of P

P is more likely to be true

P is self-evidence

I think perhaps, I

really think, I

definitely think, I

really believe, I

rather think, indeed

I think, I certainly

think

Infe

ren

ce

I say I + CNFV and EA collocations

inference P

I want you to know that I assume P

is true.

P is likely to be true at some point in

the past.

evidence about P is related to the

state-of-affairs in the past.

I think probably, I

think maybe, I guess

maybe,

17

Semantics features of I + CNFV and EA

collocation based on deduction

I + CNFV and EA

collocations

Pre

dic

tio

n

I say I + CNFV and EA collocations

prediction P

I want you to know that I assume P

is true.

P is likely to be true at some point in

the future.

Evidence about P is related to the

state-of-affairs in the future.

If P is true, P can be pleasant/

desirable.

If P is true, P can be

unpleasant/undesirable.

I suppose really, I

just assume, I just

hope

5.1.4. Frequency of the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations

Showing in Belief, Inference and Prediction

Table 5.2. Frequency of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations

in Belief, Inference, and Prediction

Deduction Occurrence %

Belief 435 60.83

Inference 98 13.7

Prediction 182 25.45

Total 715 100

5.2. The Modal Meanings of the Structure I + CNFV and EA

Collocations

There are three modal meanings of the structure as follows:

5.2.1. Tentativeness

5.2.2. Assertion

5.2.3. Negation

5.3. Semantic Features of the Structure I + CNFV and EA

Collocations Based on the Scale of Certainty

Followings are three degrees of certainty mentioned

18

5.3.1. High Certainty

5.3.2. Mid Certainty

5.3.3. Low Certainty

Table 5.3. Scale of certainty of the structure I + CNFV and EA

collocations in English

Scale of Certainty of the structure I + CNFV and

EA Collocations

I + CNFV and EA

Collocations

Hig

h

Cer

tain

ty

I + CNFV and EA collocation [high

certainty] P

I want you to know that

P is more likely to be true

I assume that I have evidence

P is my conclusion based on the

cognitive outcome or belief

I certainly think, I

certainly hope, I

surely think, I

really suppose, I

believe indeed, I

really hope

Mid

Cer

tain

ty

I + CNFV and EA collocation [mid

certainty] P

I want you to know that

P is likely to be true

I assume that I have evidence

P is my conclusion based on the

cognitive outcome

I think perhaps, I

guess maybe, I

hope perhaps, I

think maybe, I think

possibly, I think

probably,

Lo

w

Cer

tain

ty

I + CNFV and EA collocation [low

certainty] P

I want you to know that

P is less likely to be true

If P is true, P can be

unpleasant/undesirable

I don‟t want P to be true

I rather think, I just

hope,

I hardly think, I

just think, I only

think, I just assume

5.4. Semantic Features of the Structure I think + EA Based on

the Scale of Negation

[Affirmation] I think EA I scarcely think I hardly think

I don’t think + EAs [Negation]

19

Figure 5.7 Scale of Negation of the Structure I think + EAs

5.5. Summary

In conclusion, in order to use the structure I + CNFV and

EA collocations effectively in communication, we think it is

necessary for learners of English and native speakers of English to

have further study in semantic features of the structure I + CNFV

and EA collocations such as semantic features basing on deduction,

scale of certainty, and scale of negation.

Chapter 6

PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF THE STRUCTURE

I + CNFV AND EA COLLOCATIONS

6.1. The Communicative Strategies Using the Structure I +

CNFV and EA Collocations

6.1.1 The Structure I + Cognitive Non-Factive Verb and

Epistemic Adverb Collocations Used in Politeness Strategies

6.1.1.1. Negative Politeness Strategy

a. Mitigating the Reproach

b. Avoiding the Imposition of Knowledge

c. Revealing the Speaker‟s Unflattering Things

6.1.1.2. Positive Politeness Strategy

a. Mitigating Illocutionary Force to Downgrade the Positive Face of

Speaker

b. Enhancing the Hearer‟s Good Virtues to Respect His Positive Face

c. Mitigating the Illocutionary Force of Claims of Knowledge by

Negating the Speaker‟s Knowledge

20

Table 6.1 The structure I + CNFV and EA collocations with positive

and negative politeness strategies

Politeness Strategies English Pragmatic

Orientation

Negative

Mitigating the

reproach

I just think, I think

perhaps, I really think

Hearer-oriented,

reducing his/her

unflattering things

(remarks, criticism)

Avoiding the

imposition of

knowledge

I think maybe, I think

perhaps, I only hope

Hearer-oriented,

reducing

disadvantages

(claims of

knowledge)

Revealing the

speaker‟s

unflattering

things

I certainly don’t

think, I really don’t

think, I think perhaps,

In fact I think

Speaker-oriented,

increasing his/her

unflattering things

Positive

Reducing the

speaker‟s

good virtues

I definitely think,

Indeed I believe, I

really hope, I really

don’t think, I really

believe

Toward the

hearer‟s positive

face

Enhancing the

hearer‟s good

virtues

Indeed I think, I

really do sometimes

think, I really believe,

I really think

Toward the

hearer‟s positive

face

Negating the

speaker‟s state

of cognition

I really don’t think, I

don’t think really, I

don’t really believe

Hearer-oriented,

reducing his/her

unflattering things

21

6.1.2. Hedges

The structure is used as hedges in communication to make the

conversations more effectively.

6.1.3. Mitigation in the Mobility of the Structure I + CNFV and EA

Collocations

Mobility of the structure has made mitigation in

communication.

6.2. Pragmatic Meanings in Negation of the Structure I +

Cognitive Non-Factive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations

There are two main purposes when using negation of the

structure, as follows.

6.2.1. Hearer-Oriented Pragmatic Meanings of Moved Negation of

the Structure I + Cognitive Non-Factive Verb and Epistemic

Adverb Collocations

6.2.2. Mitigating the Illocutionary Force of Claims of Knowledge

by Using Moved Negation of the Structure I + Cognitive Non-

Factive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations

6.3. Speech Act – Based Pragmatic Features Expressed by the

Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations

The structure I + CNFV and EA collocations can be used to

display different Speech Acts as follows.

6.3.1. Decreasing Complaining/ Admonishing

6.3.2. Counselling

6.3.3. Reducing Boasting

6.4. Summary

Using the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations in negative

and positive politeness strategies. the communicative strategies of the

construction used as hedges, mitigation, and pragmatic features based

on the moved negation and speech- act modality of the structure I +

CNFV and EA collocations were mentioned in this section.

22

Chapter 7

INTERPLAY OF SYNTACTICS, SEMANTICS, AND

PRAGMATICS IN THE STRUCTURE I + CNFV AND EA

COLLOCATIONS

7.1. Mobility of Epistemic Adverbs in the Structure I + CNFV

and EA Collocations

The mobility of EAs in the matrix clause creates changes in

semantics and pragmatics like in table 7.1

Table 7.1. Interplay of three linguistic aspects based on the mobility

of EAs in the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations

Positions of

EAs in the

matrix clause

Syntactics Semantics Pragmatics

Initial Marked form High

conviction

Clause-oriented

adverb

Medial Unmarked

form

Medium

conviction

VP- oriented

adverb

Final Unmarked

form

Low

conviction

VP- oriented

adverb

7.2. Interplay of Three Linguistic Dimensions in the

Combination of Just and Other EAs in the Matrix Clause

The impact of just when combining with other EAs in

syntactics, sematics and pragmatics was presented.

7.3. Interplay of Three Linguistic Aspects in Mobility of the

Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations in a Superordinate

Clause

The mobility of the structure in a superordinate clause will

lead to changes in semantics and pragmatics.

7.4. Interplay of Three Linguistic Aspects in the Emphasis by Using

Auxiliary Verbs Do in the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations

23

The emphasis by using Do in the structure makes a

difference in semantics and pragmatics like in table 7.6

Table 7.6. EAs in the emphasis by using the auxiliary Do in the

structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations

EAs in the

emphasis with Do

Strong

EAs Medium EAs Low EAs

Do + _ _

7.5. Interaction of Three Linguistic Aspects in Negative Move of

the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations

Negative move of the structure I + CNFV and EA

collocations displays their interplay clearly.

7.6. Interplay of Three Linguistic Dimensions in the Structure I

+ CNFV and EA Collocations Based on Deduction

7.7. Summary

The interplay of three linguistic aspects in the structure I +

CNFV and EA collocations plays an important part in English.

Therefore, language users need to master it.

Chapter 8

CONCLUSION

8.1. Recapitulation

In the research, we have attempted to present an overall view

on linguistic features of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations

in English in three aspects: syntactics, semantics and pragmatics.

With 1000 samples in English, some findings of the structure I +

CNFV and EA collocations were discovered and thanks to the

descriptive, quantitative and qualitative approaches, the study

24

presented syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features and the

interplay of three above linguistic aspects.

8.2. Conclusions

From the results of the study, it can come to the conclusion that

the study described successfully linguistic features in syntactics,

semantics, pragmatics of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations,

especially the interplay of these three aspects. In brief, this study is

hoped to help learners of English a lot in mastering the structure I +

CNFV and EA collocations and using it in communication and also

open the paths for interesting questions relative to epistemic modality in

particular, and linguistics in general.

8.3. Implications

8.3.1. For English Language Learning and Teaching

All linguistic features of the structure I + CNFV and EA

collocations should be mentioned in teaching and learning English as

a foreign language so that learners of English can use it effectively.

8.3.2. For Language Research

Hopefully, the study will be a useful reference for next

researchers on modality.

8.4. Limitations of the Thesis and Suggestions for Further Studies

8.4.1. Limitations of the Thesis

- It‟s difficult to get all contexts for such large data (1000 samples)

- We could not carry out a fieldwork to collect authentic samples.

8.4.2. Suggestions for Further Studies

- Cultural features should be mentioned

-The impact of each pattern of the structure on other grammatical

factors hasn‟t been discussed.

- Vietnamese equivalents of the structure should be argued.

THE AUTHOR’S ARTICLES RELATED TO THE STUDY

[1]. Trần Thị Minh Giang, Ngũ Thiện Hùng (2011), “Sự khác nhau

giữa động từ thực hữu và không thực hữu (Trên cứ liệu tiếng

Anh và đối dịch tiếng Việt)”, Tạp chí Khoa học và Công nghệ

Đại học Đà Nẵng, số 2(43) năm 2011, tr. 218-225.

[2] Lưu Quý Khương, Trần Thị Minh Giang (2012), “Nghiên cứu

một số đặc trưng ngữ dụng của trạng từ tình thái nhận thức khẳng

định và không khẳng định trong tiếng Anh”, Ngôn ngữ, số

5(276), tr. 50-56.

[3] Lưu Quý Khương, Trần Thị Minh Giang (2013), “Đặc trưng của

động từ tình thái tri nhận không thực hữu trong tiếng Anh”, Ngôn

ngữ và đời sống, sổ 3(209), tr. 20-27.

[4] Trần Thị Minh Giang, Lưu Quý Khương (2014), “A Study of

Some Linguistic Features of the Tranferred Negation of

Cognitive Non-factive Verbs in English”, International Journal

of Language and Linguistics, 2(3), pp.140-144.

[5] Trần Thị Minh Giang (2015), “A Study of the Pragmatic

Dimension of Epistemic Adverbs on Cognitive Non-Factive

Verbs in English”, The University of Danang- Journal of Science

and Technology, 6(91), pp.140-142.

[6] Trần Thị Minh Giang (2016), “A Study of Syntactic Features of

Cognitive Non-Factive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations

in English and Their Vietnamese Equivalents”, International

Journal of Mind, Brain & Cognition, 7(1-2), pp. 35-58.

[7] Trần Thị Minh Giang (2017), “Đặc trưng ngữ nghĩa của những

kết ngôn giữa động từ tri nhận phi thực hữu và trạng từ nhận thức

(trên cứ liệu tiếng Anh và đối dịch tiếng Việt)”, Kỷ yếu hội thảo

khoa học quốc gia 2017- Nghiên cứu và giảng dạy ngoại ngữ,

ngôn ngữ, quốc tế hoc tại Việt Nam, tr. 465-475.